Laserfiche WebLink
owner of the structure or provide an appropriate engineering evaluation showing that the <br />structure wil[ not be damaged by the mining operation. <br />17. The Landrus's stated in a March 6, 2005 letter that their barn, home and garage were <br />within the 200-foot boundary set forth in Constmction Materials Rule 6.4.19 yet were not <br />identifed as such by the Applicant. <br />18. On April 11, 2005, the Applicant revised the Existing Conditions Plan Map to list the <br />man-made structures within the area affected by the mining operation, including the barn, <br />home and three-caz gazage owned by the Landrus family. The Division reviewed the <br />slope stability analysis prepared by the Applicant. As depicted on the Mining Plan Map, <br />the Applicant will maintain an 85-foot mining offset distance measured horizontally from <br />the toe of the mining slope to the closest structure on the Landrus property. With the <br />revision, the Applicant has therefore addressed the stability of all structures within 200 <br />feet of the affected area, as required by Construction Materials Rule 6.4.19. <br />19. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Applicant has complied with Construction <br />Materials Rule 6.4.19 with respect to this issue. <br />Issue 4b: EnQineerine Analysis or Notarized Agreement for KemMcGee Gas Line? <br />20. If the proposed mining activities adversely affect the stability of a utility, Construction <br />Materials Rule 6.4.19 requires an applicant to secure a notarized letter from the utility <br />owner that the proposed activities will have "no negative effect" on their utility. <br />21. CDOT expressed concern in its March 26, 2005 letter to the Division that the Applicant <br />failed to disclose the location of an existing gas line easement. CDOT was concerned <br />that the easement encroached into the CDOT right of way or that the easement might <br />encroach into the CDOT easement if the eas line is relocated due to mining operations. <br />